% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Dafsari:860707,
      author       = {Dafsari, Haidar S. and Martinez‐Martin, Pablo and Rizos,
                      Alexandra and Trost, Maja and Santos Ghilardi, Maria
                      Gabriela and Reddy, Prashanth and Sauerbier, Anna and
                      Petry‐Schmelzer, Jan Niklas and Kramberger, Milica and
                      Borgemeester, Robbert W. K. and Barbe, Michael T. and
                      Ashkan, Keyoumars and Silverdale, Monty and Evans, Julian
                      and Odin, Per and Fonoff, Erich Talamoni and Fink, Gereon R.
                      and Henriksen, Tove and Ebersbach, Georg and Pirtošek,
                      Zvezdan and Visser‐Vandewalle, Veerle and Antonini, Angelo
                      and Timmermann, Lars and Ray Chaudhuri, K.},
      title        = {{E}uro{I}nf 2: {S}ubthalamic stimulation, apomorphine, and
                      levodopa infusion in {P}arkinson's disease},
      journal      = {Movement disorders},
      volume       = {34},
      number       = {3},
      issn         = {1531-8257},
      address      = {New York, NY},
      publisher    = {Wiley},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2019-01372},
      pages        = {353-365},
      year         = {2019},
      abstract     = {ObjectiveReal‐life observational report of clinical
                      efficacy of bilateral subthalamic stimulation (STN‐DBS),
                      apomorphine (APO), and intrajejunal levodopa infusion (IJLI)
                      on quality of life, motor, and nonmotor symptoms (NMS) in
                      Parkinson's disease (PD).MethodsIn this prospective,
                      multicenter, international, real‐life cohort observation
                      study of 173 PD patients undergoing STN‐DBS (n = 101),
                      IJLI (n = 33), or APO (n = 39) were followed‐up using
                      PDQuestionnaire‐8, NMSScale (NMSS), Unified PD Rating
                      Scale (UPDRS)‐III, UPDRS‐IV, and levodopa equivalent
                      daily dose (LEDD) before and 6 months after intervention.
                      Outcome changes were analyzed with Wilcoxon signed‐rank or
                      paired t test when parametric tests were applicable.
                      Multiple comparisons were corrected (multiple
                      treatments/scales). Effect strengths were quantified with
                      relative changes, effect size, and number needed to treat.
                      Analyses were computed before and after propensity score
                      matching, balancing demographic and clinical
                      characteristics.ResultsIn all groups, PDQuestionnaire‐8,
                      UPDRS‐IV, and NMSS total scores improved significantly at
                      follow‐up. Levodopa equivalent daily dose was
                      significantly reduced after STN‐DBS. Explorative NMSS
                      domain analyses resulted in distinct profiles: STN‐DBS
                      improved urinary/sexual functions, mood/cognition,
                      sleep/fatigue, and the miscellaneous domain. IJLI improved
                      the 3 latter domains and gastrointestinal symptoms. APO
                      improved mood/cognition, perceptual problems/hallucinations,
                      attention/memory, and the miscellaneous domain. Overall,
                      STN‐DBS and IJLI seemed favorable for NMSS total score,
                      and APO favorable for neuropsychological/neuropsychiatric
                      NMS and PDQuestionnaire‐8 outcome.ConclusionsThis is the
                      first comparison of quality of life, nonmotor. and motor
                      outcomes in PD patients undergoing STN‐DBS, IJLI, and APO
                      in a real‐life cohort. Distinct effect profiles were
                      identified for each treatment option. Our results highlight
                      the importance of holistic nonmotor and motor symptoms
                      assessments to personalize treatment choices. © 2019
                      International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society},
      cin          = {INM-3},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406},
      pnm          = {572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:30719763},
      UT           = {WOS:000461871300009},
      doi          = {10.1002/mds.27626},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/860707},
}